Speaker
Description
While the role of urban greening as driver of gentrification in cities worldwide has been researched extensively, recent studies have pointed towards a more complex and ambivalent relationship between greening and gentrification (Quinton et al., 2024; Reibel et al., 2023; Rigolon and Collins, 2023). Empirical evidence has suggested that greening can sometimes be a consequence of gentrification, instead of a cause. Aiming to contribute to ongoing efforts to disentangle the process of green gentrification, I focus on the role of the green growth machine (García-Lamarca et al., 2022; Jocoy, 2018). I argue that, rather than two distinctive processes, greening and gentrification are two sides of the same coin. My argument builds on two in-depth case studies of urban development projects in Switzerland, a country undergoing processes of densification, financialization, and gentrification similar to many other geographical contexts. Rather than identifying a linear relation between gentrification and greening, as previous quantitative studies have done, I rely on qualitative data to illustrate how the dynamics of the green growth machine unfold in practice. In one case, urban greening was integrated into the regeneration and densification of a former industrial site in order to increase the attractiveness of the area for future residents and to ensure public acceptance. The public green space boosted private investment by raising demand for this former brownfield area, constituting a form of state-led gentrification. In the other case, greening was integrated in a densification project to increase support for the removal of existing allotment gardens. The case demonstrates how the green growth machine produces a specific greening agenda in line with growth objectives, in this case at the expense of the allotment gardens. The article shows how ecological and densification agendas are conveniently combined by growth-oriented actors to ‘sell’ urban growth, both economically and politically. Green space projects function as sustainability fix (While et al., 2004), becoming instrumental to growth imperatives. I conclude by underlining the green growth machine as key factor in the analysis of green gentrification.
References
García-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H.V.S., James, J., Connolly, T., Carmen, P., Shokry, G., Triguero-mas, M., 2022. Urban green grabbing : Residential real estate developers discourse and practice in gentrifying Global North neighborhoods. Geoforum 128, 1–10.
Jocoy, C.L., 2018. Green growth machines? Competing discourses of urban development in Playa Vista, California. Urban Geogr. 39, 388–412.
Quinton, J., Nesbitt, L., Connolly, J.J., Wyly, E., 2024. How common is greening in gentrifying areas? Urban Geogr. 45, 1029–1051.
Reibel, M., Rigolon, A., Rocha, A., 2023. Follow the money: Do gentrifying and at-risk neighborhoods attract more park spending? J. Urban Aff. 45, 923–941.
Rigolon, A., Collins, T., 2023. The green gentrification cycle. Urban Stud. 60, 770–785.
While, A., Jonas, A.E.G., Gibbs, D., 2004. The environment and the entrepreneurial city: searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester and Leeds. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 28, 549–569.
| Keywords | Urban greening; Densification; Green growth machine; Sustainability fix; Switzerland. |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
